evilsnoopi3

Likely it just means that college-bound students (which should be ~1/3 of young adults based off educational attainment levels in the US), strongly lean to taking the ACT.

The technical write up is worth perusing but I played a game before reading and accidentally found a winning strategy immediately. I'm not sure if this is a result of the 2-ply nature of the engine or if the mentioned deficiencies account for this but the computer did not act to prevent checkmate in 1 (without any intervening check); the game I played was (in algebraic notation): 1. e4 e5 2. kf3 kf6 3. kxe5 kxe4 4. d4 kxf2 5. Kxf2 a5 6. Qf3 b5?? 7. Qxf7 1-0

Literally only one of the drugs you mentioned can kill you due to withdrawal. Hint: it's not LSD or tobacco.

Alcohol is an _extremely_ harmful drug.

Exactly. What is important is knowing what to prioritize for the project at hand. If it’s useful it’s not a cargo cult. Of course the less experienced would ask “how do you know if it will be useful?” but truly the answer is you experiment.

The problem of course is that so many things are experiential (rather than data driven) so the question “What would convince you otherwise?” could only be answered by “Having lived a different life.”

Take, for example, a software engineering opinion that I hold dearly: “Good commit titles and descriptions, with sufficient description of why a change was made and notes on any non-obvious implementation decisions, are valuable and necessary.” This arises from my experiences trying to debug code in repos filled with commits titles ‘wip’ and ‘address feedback’ and ‘changes’ which inexplicably touch 5k LoC. I simply despise trying to divine what some past developer intended without any clue as to why; it is an epistemological impossibility even when sometimes the past developer is me. More over I am convinced this is necessary because I also have the experience of doing all the work to understand some spaghetti—using old issue tickets and git blame to slowly build a mental model of the codebase—finding the bug, changing it, and having the whole system violently reject my fix because what appears to the naive observer to be a bug is, in fact, intended behavior the system depends on.

What would convince me otherwise that spending time on writing good commits is not worth the time and effort? Either an impossible-to-execute-without-confounding-variables longitudinal study that measures developer happiness over time in code bases that do/do not emphasize commit message quality. Or I could have different experiences that lead me to not care. Like if I never had to maintain legacy code or if everywhere I ever worked had issue trackers filled with explicit technical details and motivations then maybe I wouldn’t care; but that’s not my experience so I do care.

I don’t know how you hack your way past the reality that there is not one perfect way to write maintainable software and even if there was nobody actually has time for that. So you have to chose what to prioritize and some of those priorities may become your personal cargo cult.

> For example, the structure of EEOC Title VII inquisitions pressures companies to search extra hard to hire diverse candidates from a fixed size pipeline (the only way to make this work is to relax qualification requirements while pretending qualification requirements aren't relaxed, and maybe to fire any employees who fail to play along), but they can only go so far before they run up against the letter of the law which prohibits them from, say, openly firing people for their race.

This assumes worker pipelines are fixed which, practically, they aren't. You can increase flows to the pipeline by increasing outreach or incentivizing attainable qualifications. You can also seek trainees rather than day 1 contributors, which admittedly _is_ "relax[ing] qualification requirements" but has the trade-off of providing more purpose-fit employees when they do start contributing.

You can also use TypedDict if you would normally use a raw dictionary but want the type checking.

I believe Google requires you publish Chrome extensions with an @gmail address, in which case MS doesn’t really have a choice.

This should have (2014) at the end of the title. Very interesting though especially with the hindsight of 7 more years...

The fact that AWS doesn't link to the Elastic License is hilarious to me. The plain reading of the license is "APLv2 but AWS Can't Sell a Hosted Version" so of course AWS forks the last APL version and plows ahead.

Note, I'm not trying to side with either AWS or Elastic here and I fully recognize that both Elastic re-licensing and AWS forking are within each org's rights. I really just think it is funny how beside the point AWS's press release is here.

EDIT: an apostrophe